On 8/10/21 9:31 pm, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 07:24:58PM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 8/10/21 6:01 pm, David Runge wrote:
Starting a discussion about the length and form of the Code of Conduct *after* not interacting with the own changes to the Code of Conduct that would fix it, *after* not interacting with the RFC that wants to establish the CoC distribution-wide during its comment period and also *after* not interacting with the changes that were done last to the CoC (which in fact you gave the initial idea for and were informed about its progress multiple times) by Jonas and I, but instead complained about *after the fact*, to me, quite frankly at this point feels nothing short of condescending and disrespectful.
The RFC does not give the option of an edited version of the Code of Conduct being adopted. The RFC states that the Code of Conduct "is hereby officially adopted in its current form". Hence the RFC is about adopting the *current* version of the Code of Conduct, which I object to.
I'm not sure why you stopped reading after that part. The next section specifies that it's a living document and changes can be merged going forward.
"The Code of Conduct is a living document that may change over time. Changes are applied by merge request towards the `Service Agreements repository <https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/service-agreements/>`_. Any contributions follow the repository's contribution guidelines."
Which should satisfy your current problem with the document as-is. We can amend and fix it at a later point regardless. Your current issues with the document isn't a good enough reason to block this process, and we can work it out at a later point.
That would apply if I thought the current version was good enough for formal adoption. However, I think the current version is unacceptable.